![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackHaving talked about toilet seats and coffee, now lets talk about something people feel much, much more strongly about.
Scenario 1
On a small, remote island live a few people. Thog fishes. Ug grows plants[1]. This food supports their families, and a few other people. People can just about live on plants or fishes, but it requires a lot of growing (or catching) difficult things, so there's a lead-up time.
One year, there seem to be fewer and fewer fishes[1]. Thog was very sad. He worked harder and harder, but still didn't really catch enough. There were enough fish for Ug's gigantic extended family to have a balanced diet, if they mostly ate plants, but Thog mostly ate fish, and there simply weren't enough.
Thog began to despair. Some of Ug's children began to suggest it was his own fault for being a fisherman, and he really shouldn't have entered a profession where this kind of thing can happen, but Ug's old, old father heard them and spoke sternly to them. "You don't know what it's like when your profession starts to fail," he said. "I used to be a champion lizard catcher in the island, and now there's no lizards at all. But I remember years when the harvest was bad, and years when the fishing was bad, and so far they've come back. Don't exult when it happens to someone else."
"After all," he continued, "when Thog's father became frail when Thog was young, what should he have done? He talked about sailing away to find adventure in distant parts of the archipeligo, but his father, and I, and Ug, all came to him, and said that we know it was hard, but fishing was a useful, noble profession, and we were sure he could take over from his father. And he's worked very hard for the island since and had a really good life -- until just now."
"He didn't have much choice about it, but we owe him for all he has done." The children were duly impressed[2].
One of them chirped up to show willing. "Even if the fishing fails, we've got plenty of grain this year," she said. "We can give Thog more grain, and he'll have enough to eat, whether he fishes or not. We did that when Thull broke his arm, but then he spent his time building the temple and learning to sing, and everyone liked listening to him so much they went on giving him grain so he'd have more time to sing. Someone can always catch enough fish to give us a balanced diet, or we can grow [the sort of plants that give you the sort of vitamins you get mainly from fish]"
"Ah," shook the old man's head wisely, "your compassion does you credit. When the lizards left the island, many people gave me food. But do you think Thog would be happy to accept?"
"Why not?" they asked.
"Well, that's fine for this year, but what happens next year? If the harvest is less next year and the little ones are hungry, will we still share with Thog? Whether we do or not, someone will be hungry. And he is not as good a singer as Thul, so people may resent sharing with him if he can't work."
"Well," said another, "maybe the fishing will be better again!"
"And who will fish for them? If no-one wants Thog's fish in the meantime, will he keep his boat in good repair? Will he be such an excellent fisherman?"
"So, what do we do?" chorused the children.
"Well..." said Grandpa. "The temple is in bad repair. We've been been meaning to rebuild the wooden roof, and redecorate with pearls and shells for years, but never had time. I'm going to go to Thog, and suggest that now would be a good time. He builds his own boat, he can do the roof, and fish for the shells, and pearls, and maybe catch enough fish to feed us at the same time. And in return, we'll share our grain with him. Yes, yes, I think this is good. And then, next year, if the fishing recovers, he'll be already. Yes, I think he'll accept."
So Ug's father, and Ug went to Thog, and they discussed it, and all agreed it was a good plan, and next year the fish recovered, and they had a new temple for Thull to sing in, and all was happy.
The Moral 1: Welfare, Healthcare, etc
Here we have several different examples of the government (ie. the representatives of a majority of the people) providing basic subsistence to people, either in terms of outright granting, or by making a loan to them at advantageous terms, or by buying things from them at advantageous terms.
One is temporary welfare. When Thull first broke his arm, then whether or not it was his fault, everyone agreed they couldn't just let him starve! Some people thought that this should be a LAST resort, that Thul should have tried to prepare as best he could such that he had enough dried stores (or favours owed) to live on while he healed whether anyone helped or not. Other people thought that drying stores and agreeing favours was a lot of work that was often unnecessary and so the vast majority of the time, it was best to just work hard, and but have everyone agree that they'd help out if someone couldn't work.
A few people didn't want to help out, and said "it'll never happen to me", but all the old men, and old women, and strong, tough, intimidating men and women went round to them and had a very frank talk, where they said that if someone couldn't work then either (a) they were starving and deserved help anyway, even if it WAS their own fault, but especially if they'd tried to plan ahead but hadn't been able to or (b) they'd been working hard to help out other people, and deserved the same in return! Since there was no way they were going to let someone starve if they broke their arm later, they should damn well contribute to the common good now, and taking the risk on their own welfare was not an option.
This may be a simplification, but the main questions seem to be, "should someone have the right to gamble with their future, and if they lose, be thrown out onto the streets to starve, whether they do it for good reason or ill-thought out ones?" and "if we guarantee a basic standard of decent living, do we have to humiliate and degrade people who take advantage of it, to ensure that no-one JUST takes advantage of it?" From the way I phrased the questions you can probably see which way I'm leaning... :)
Moral 2: Science, arts, government services and utilities
Another reason for "government" support is to support something where the benefits are indirect and so it's hard to charge people for them directly. Support for scientific research, which may bear practically and/or philosophically useful fruit eventually. Support for arts, music, american football teams, etc. Or for that matter, road-builders.
In my primitive society, there's not always an official job description. People give food to the bard-priest. Maybe in a few years they'll see that as a religious obligation, even though in modern terms what they actually get out of it may be something like culture and a civil service (assuming Thull goes around giving a mix of relevant philosophical questions, moral guidance, performances, and scribal services).
Occasionally you can be reading the bible, and all of a sudden something goes "click" and you shout "Aha! That's not a weird religious ritual! It's a religiously mandated tax on animals which goes to fund a civil service!" Unless you're a extreme christian sect, in which case you'll cry "it's an obscure metaphor for the apocalypse, I think". Unless you're livredor parodying an extreme christian sect, in which case you'll exclaim "it's an obscure metaphor for the apocalypse, I think" in haiku.
Moral 3 -- bailouts and temporary subsidies
However, the main part of the story is not Thul's arm, or Thul's music-preaching, but Thog's fish. Everyone agrees that they need to help out, but it's not enough just to help Thog, they specifically want to help Thog in exchange for his fishing. This is because, for all sorts of reasons, they want to keep the fishing-thing going. And although the root agreement is often heavily obscured by layers of indirection, it turns out that it's better for Thog, for fishing, and for everyone else, to find an indirect way of helping fishing, rather than just handing Thog grain directly.
One is, it repays Thog's hard work in becoming an excellent hard-working fisherman by respecting him. One is, it keeps fishing available because it provided indirect benefits not apparent in the standard grain-for-fish deal.
Of course, this can be accomplished in different ways. One analogy would be "the price of fish increases, and so Thog earns enough from a bit of fishing and a lot of temple-mending to equal what he earned before". Another would be "the government stepped in and provided a temporary loan (or grant) in order to keep the fishing going". Or "provided a subsidy onto the price of fish". Another would be "consumers got together and agreed to pay a premium for fish with the special fixing-the-temple logo on". These are very, very, very different in their logistics, and provide very, very different liquidity, and all are appropriate sometimes, but people disagree violently[3] about which is NORMALLY the most helpful.
Moral 4 -- Non-temporary subsidies
One good thing with the subsidy approach is that it keeps everything ticking along just as before, and is a temporary fix. Another is to get indirect benefits from someone's nearly-but-not-quite economic activity -- eg. if a new technology is BEGINNING to be economic, you may decide the public interest is in them getting as much as they can out of it, rather than needing to gamble on 20-50 year hence results. Sometimes this can be very good and just the fix you need.
The very bad thing is that Thog then gets USED to everything being as before, and if the fish-drought goes on, feels entitled to continue to get a subsidy, which means everyone pays a lot of grain in order for Thog to do a lot of hard work, which is ultimately useless. (See scenario 2.)
Viewed as a loan, it was inherently temporary. The trouble with a subsidy is that it can obscure whatever benefit you were SUPPOSED to get. If the benefit is "when the fishing recovers, we need Thog there ready", then that's good for a year, but no so great long term.
If the indirect benefit is "When Thog fishes, he finds shells and pearls he gives to Thull for the temple", then giving Thog a subsidy to fish may help, and giving him a subsidy to find shells and pearls may help more, but may result in an excess of them, it might be more helpful to give a grant to Thull which he can use to BUY shells from Thog. Or some other arrangement.
You may, with the best of intentions, end up with a confusing and contradictory mess of subsidies that support bureaucracy much more than anything good they were SUPPOSED to support. Or may end up bailing out criminals and victims equally if the criminals have successfully intertwined everyone's finances to the point where you can't extricate them.
Now onto Scenario 2.
Scenario 2
To follow...
Scenario 3
To follow...
[1] Yes, you could draw an analogy to Cain/Abel or to older Agrarian/Sheperdic class clash myths, or to ecological changes, or MODERN vegetarian/omnivore politics, but those are not the intended metaphor and we don't know whether or not you'd find anything instructive in the comparison :)
[2] Did I mention the hypothetical nature of this scenario?
[3] I'm not kidding about "violent". Cf. Communist revolutions!
Scenario 1
On a small, remote island live a few people. Thog fishes. Ug grows plants[1]. This food supports their families, and a few other people. People can just about live on plants or fishes, but it requires a lot of growing (or catching) difficult things, so there's a lead-up time.
One year, there seem to be fewer and fewer fishes[1]. Thog was very sad. He worked harder and harder, but still didn't really catch enough. There were enough fish for Ug's gigantic extended family to have a balanced diet, if they mostly ate plants, but Thog mostly ate fish, and there simply weren't enough.
Thog began to despair. Some of Ug's children began to suggest it was his own fault for being a fisherman, and he really shouldn't have entered a profession where this kind of thing can happen, but Ug's old, old father heard them and spoke sternly to them. "You don't know what it's like when your profession starts to fail," he said. "I used to be a champion lizard catcher in the island, and now there's no lizards at all. But I remember years when the harvest was bad, and years when the fishing was bad, and so far they've come back. Don't exult when it happens to someone else."
"After all," he continued, "when Thog's father became frail when Thog was young, what should he have done? He talked about sailing away to find adventure in distant parts of the archipeligo, but his father, and I, and Ug, all came to him, and said that we know it was hard, but fishing was a useful, noble profession, and we were sure he could take over from his father. And he's worked very hard for the island since and had a really good life -- until just now."
"He didn't have much choice about it, but we owe him for all he has done." The children were duly impressed[2].
One of them chirped up to show willing. "Even if the fishing fails, we've got plenty of grain this year," she said. "We can give Thog more grain, and he'll have enough to eat, whether he fishes or not. We did that when Thull broke his arm, but then he spent his time building the temple and learning to sing, and everyone liked listening to him so much they went on giving him grain so he'd have more time to sing. Someone can always catch enough fish to give us a balanced diet, or we can grow [the sort of plants that give you the sort of vitamins you get mainly from fish]"
"Ah," shook the old man's head wisely, "your compassion does you credit. When the lizards left the island, many people gave me food. But do you think Thog would be happy to accept?"
"Why not?" they asked.
"Well, that's fine for this year, but what happens next year? If the harvest is less next year and the little ones are hungry, will we still share with Thog? Whether we do or not, someone will be hungry. And he is not as good a singer as Thul, so people may resent sharing with him if he can't work."
"Well," said another, "maybe the fishing will be better again!"
"And who will fish for them? If no-one wants Thog's fish in the meantime, will he keep his boat in good repair? Will he be such an excellent fisherman?"
"So, what do we do?" chorused the children.
"Well..." said Grandpa. "The temple is in bad repair. We've been been meaning to rebuild the wooden roof, and redecorate with pearls and shells for years, but never had time. I'm going to go to Thog, and suggest that now would be a good time. He builds his own boat, he can do the roof, and fish for the shells, and pearls, and maybe catch enough fish to feed us at the same time. And in return, we'll share our grain with him. Yes, yes, I think this is good. And then, next year, if the fishing recovers, he'll be already. Yes, I think he'll accept."
So Ug's father, and Ug went to Thog, and they discussed it, and all agreed it was a good plan, and next year the fish recovered, and they had a new temple for Thull to sing in, and all was happy.
The Moral 1: Welfare, Healthcare, etc
Here we have several different examples of the government (ie. the representatives of a majority of the people) providing basic subsistence to people, either in terms of outright granting, or by making a loan to them at advantageous terms, or by buying things from them at advantageous terms.
One is temporary welfare. When Thull first broke his arm, then whether or not it was his fault, everyone agreed they couldn't just let him starve! Some people thought that this should be a LAST resort, that Thul should have tried to prepare as best he could such that he had enough dried stores (or favours owed) to live on while he healed whether anyone helped or not. Other people thought that drying stores and agreeing favours was a lot of work that was often unnecessary and so the vast majority of the time, it was best to just work hard, and but have everyone agree that they'd help out if someone couldn't work.
A few people didn't want to help out, and said "it'll never happen to me", but all the old men, and old women, and strong, tough, intimidating men and women went round to them and had a very frank talk, where they said that if someone couldn't work then either (a) they were starving and deserved help anyway, even if it WAS their own fault, but especially if they'd tried to plan ahead but hadn't been able to or (b) they'd been working hard to help out other people, and deserved the same in return! Since there was no way they were going to let someone starve if they broke their arm later, they should damn well contribute to the common good now, and taking the risk on their own welfare was not an option.
This may be a simplification, but the main questions seem to be, "should someone have the right to gamble with their future, and if they lose, be thrown out onto the streets to starve, whether they do it for good reason or ill-thought out ones?" and "if we guarantee a basic standard of decent living, do we have to humiliate and degrade people who take advantage of it, to ensure that no-one JUST takes advantage of it?" From the way I phrased the questions you can probably see which way I'm leaning... :)
Moral 2: Science, arts, government services and utilities
Another reason for "government" support is to support something where the benefits are indirect and so it's hard to charge people for them directly. Support for scientific research, which may bear practically and/or philosophically useful fruit eventually. Support for arts, music, american football teams, etc. Or for that matter, road-builders.
In my primitive society, there's not always an official job description. People give food to the bard-priest. Maybe in a few years they'll see that as a religious obligation, even though in modern terms what they actually get out of it may be something like culture and a civil service (assuming Thull goes around giving a mix of relevant philosophical questions, moral guidance, performances, and scribal services).
Occasionally you can be reading the bible, and all of a sudden something goes "click" and you shout "Aha! That's not a weird religious ritual! It's a religiously mandated tax on animals which goes to fund a civil service!" Unless you're a extreme christian sect, in which case you'll cry "it's an obscure metaphor for the apocalypse, I think". Unless you're livredor parodying an extreme christian sect, in which case you'll exclaim "it's an obscure metaphor for the apocalypse, I think" in haiku.
Moral 3 -- bailouts and temporary subsidies
However, the main part of the story is not Thul's arm, or Thul's music-preaching, but Thog's fish. Everyone agrees that they need to help out, but it's not enough just to help Thog, they specifically want to help Thog in exchange for his fishing. This is because, for all sorts of reasons, they want to keep the fishing-thing going. And although the root agreement is often heavily obscured by layers of indirection, it turns out that it's better for Thog, for fishing, and for everyone else, to find an indirect way of helping fishing, rather than just handing Thog grain directly.
One is, it repays Thog's hard work in becoming an excellent hard-working fisherman by respecting him. One is, it keeps fishing available because it provided indirect benefits not apparent in the standard grain-for-fish deal.
Of course, this can be accomplished in different ways. One analogy would be "the price of fish increases, and so Thog earns enough from a bit of fishing and a lot of temple-mending to equal what he earned before". Another would be "the government stepped in and provided a temporary loan (or grant) in order to keep the fishing going". Or "provided a subsidy onto the price of fish". Another would be "consumers got together and agreed to pay a premium for fish with the special fixing-the-temple logo on". These are very, very, very different in their logistics, and provide very, very different liquidity, and all are appropriate sometimes, but people disagree violently[3] about which is NORMALLY the most helpful.
Moral 4 -- Non-temporary subsidies
One good thing with the subsidy approach is that it keeps everything ticking along just as before, and is a temporary fix. Another is to get indirect benefits from someone's nearly-but-not-quite economic activity -- eg. if a new technology is BEGINNING to be economic, you may decide the public interest is in them getting as much as they can out of it, rather than needing to gamble on 20-50 year hence results. Sometimes this can be very good and just the fix you need.
The very bad thing is that Thog then gets USED to everything being as before, and if the fish-drought goes on, feels entitled to continue to get a subsidy, which means everyone pays a lot of grain in order for Thog to do a lot of hard work, which is ultimately useless. (See scenario 2.)
Viewed as a loan, it was inherently temporary. The trouble with a subsidy is that it can obscure whatever benefit you were SUPPOSED to get. If the benefit is "when the fishing recovers, we need Thog there ready", then that's good for a year, but no so great long term.
If the indirect benefit is "When Thog fishes, he finds shells and pearls he gives to Thull for the temple", then giving Thog a subsidy to fish may help, and giving him a subsidy to find shells and pearls may help more, but may result in an excess of them, it might be more helpful to give a grant to Thull which he can use to BUY shells from Thog. Or some other arrangement.
You may, with the best of intentions, end up with a confusing and contradictory mess of subsidies that support bureaucracy much more than anything good they were SUPPOSED to support. Or may end up bailing out criminals and victims equally if the criminals have successfully intertwined everyone's finances to the point where you can't extricate them.
Now onto Scenario 2.
Scenario 2
To follow...
Scenario 3
To follow...
[1] Yes, you could draw an analogy to Cain/Abel or to older Agrarian/Sheperdic class clash myths, or to ecological changes, or MODERN vegetarian/omnivore politics, but those are not the intended metaphor and we don't know whether or not you'd find anything instructive in the comparison :)
[2] Did I mention the hypothetical nature of this scenario?
[3] I'm not kidding about "violent". Cf. Communist revolutions!
no subject
Date: 2010-05-21 07:38 am (UTC)The problem is that in modern countries, food is fairly heavily subsidized and shortages are in things money buys like entertainment and more than minimum heating.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'modern country' or 'shortages'. I wouldn't call lack of cable TV a 'shortage'. Are you saying that it's a pity poor people in rich countries get enough food to be able to physically sustain a pregnancy without miscarrying? That level of starvation isn't good for people regardless of whether they want children.
As a modern person, I think it should be criminal how the US government said we/they cannot provide any federal assistance to organizations who even talk about family planning beyond abstinence.
Um, like Planned Parenthood, which does receive federal funding.
There should never be an unwanted child in the world. Never. Damning someone to a lifetime of suffering should be considered torture and worse than killing someone.
I think you have quite extreme ideas about the fate of 'unwanted' children, but then it might again depend upon what you mean by 'unwanted'. About 50% of children in more developed countries are unplanned, in that their parents weren't trying to conceive when they were conceived. Most of those children go on to be loved and wanted by the time they are born. There are quite strong biological processes to bond the parents to the child over the course of the pregnancy and early childhood. On top of that, a lot of people who are using contraception would like to have children, but would prefer to conceive in a little while later, so they're not so bothered when things happen a little earlier than planned. I know quite a few people who were conceived by accident (well, statistically we all do, but I know a people who know that they weren't planned) and none of them have dramatically worse lives than those of people who were planned.
And preventing them should be hugely rewarded by society instead of humiliating and rather painful like the medical exams required to get oral contraceptives are for women in America.
This seems to be another example to US healthcare requiring unnecessary procedures. I never had to have a medical exam, beyond having my blood pressure measured and being asked a few questions about my medical history, when I've been prescribed oral contraception. If you are finding examinations humiliating and painful you should find a different gynaecologist, or at least speak to the current one about why the exams aren't good.
Not to mention how every single person feels like they can be judgmental if you're married (or even just a woman of a certain age traveling with a man) and don't have children.
Women's reproductive decisions are always regarded as an acceptable subject for public scrutiny. I have a friend who's just had her fifth child and regularly gets unwelcome comments about how many children she has and snide remarks about how she must be too stupid to understand contraception. Another friend of mine spent a summer working as an au par when she was 23 and got lots of comments from strangers who assumed she was the toddler's mother and thought that she was too young. The answer isn't to rail against people who make the opposite reproductive choice to you and try to claim that yours is morally superior, it's to argue that people should be able to make different choices about family size without random strangers passing comment.
The fact that science has come close to that several times but hasn't done anything to really make it common reality is one of the great failures of modern life.
Do you have specific examples of how this? I can't quite understand from the sentence what you're referring to.